Talk:Baptism

Todo

• Should include scriptures from here: Baptism and John 3:5.
• Do a word study of “household” to tease out more instances of religio-cultural importance of households v. individuals.

All biblical accounts of circumcision

Recipient(s)	Reference(s)
Abraham and his household	Ge 17:23–27; Ro 4:11–12
Moses and Zipporah's son Gershom	Ex 4:24–26
The sons of Israel who were born in the wilderness	Jos 5:3–7
Jesus	Lk 1:59; 2:21
Paul	Php 3:5
Timothy	Ac 16:3

The household of Hamor the Hivite and all the men in their city were circumcised in Ge 34:24, but the sons of Jacob asked them to do it deceitfully so that when they were sore on the third day they could kill them and plunder the city (which they did because Shechem the son of Hamor had defiled their sister Dinah).

What the Bible does not say about baptism

• That infants should be baptized.
• That infants shouldn’t be baptized.
• That any infant was baptized in the first century church.
• That any child born in the church was baptized after professing faith.
• That the effects of baptism are or aren’t tied to the time when baptism is administered.
• That believing parents should stop placing the sign of the covenant on their children.

Continuity between the Old and New Testaments exists unless the New Testament states otherwise by revoking a practice. Those who deny infant baptism have labeled this an argument from silence. But the silence is deafening! Arguments from silence are not weak arguments when it can be demonstrated that the reason for the silence is an assumed truth.^[1]

Jesus and Paul preferred preaching over baptizing

Jn 4:2; 1Co 1:14-17 — 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What John Piper has to say about John 3:5

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/what-happens-in-the-new-birth-part-2 — 03:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Acted-out parables

Acted-out parables

2Ki 13:14-19; Isa 20:1–6; Jer 19; 27:2–7; Eze 5:1–17; 12:1–16, 17–20; 24:1–14, 15–27; Ac 21:10–11

Baptized “into” the name of

The text of the baptismal formula is “εἰς τὸ ὄνομα” (“in the name”). This does not mean “in the authority of”, for if that were intended, a different construction “ἐν ὀνόματι” (“in the name”) would have been used instead. The baptismal formula is therefore better rendered “into the name”.

Examples of “εἰς τὸ ὄνομα”

Mt 28:19; 1Co 10:2; 1:13; 12:13; Ro 6:3; Gal 3:27

Examples of “ἐν ὀνόματι”

Mt 21:9; Mk 16:17; Lk 10:17; Jn 14:26; Ac 3:6; 9:27

Interpreted in this light, the baptismal formula indicates that by baptism (that is, by that which is signified in baptism) the recipient is placed in a special relationship to the divine self-revelation, or to God as He has revealed Himself and revealed what He will be for His people, and at the same time becomes duty bound to live up to the light of that revelation.^[2]

Was the trinitarian baptismal formula always used?

Examples where the trinitarian formula may not have been used

Ac 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; Ro 6:3; Gal 3:27

It is not necessary to assume that, when Jesus employed these words, He intended them as a formula to be used ever after. He merely used them as descriptive of the character of the baptism which He instituted . . . It is sometimes said with an appeal to such passages as . . . that the apostles evidently did not use the trinitarian formula; but this is not necessarily implied, though it is entirely possible since they did not understand the words of Jesus in the great commission as prescribing a definite formula. It is also possible, however, that the expressions used in the passages indicated served to stress certain particulars respecting the baptism of the apostles. It should be noted that the prepositions differ. Ac 2:38 speaks of a baptism “ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”, which probably refers to a baptism on the confession of Jesus as the Messiah. According to Ac 10:48 those who were present in the house of Cornelius were baptized “ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”, to indicate that they were baptized on the authority of Jesus. All the remaining passages mention a baptism “εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ” (or “τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ”), or simply a baptism “εἰς Χριστὸν”. These expressions may simply serve to stress the fact that the recipients were brought into special relationship to Jesus Christ, whom the apostles were preaching, and were thereby made subject to Him as their Lord. But whatever may have been the practice in the apostolic age, it is quite evident that when the Church later on felt the need of a formula, it could find no better than that contained in the words of the institution. This formula was already in use when the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) was written (c. 100 A.D.).^[3]

Mode of baptism

Baptists are at variance with the rest of the Christian world in their position that dipping or immersion, followed by emersion, is the only proper mode of baptism; and that this mode is absolutely essential to baptism, because this rite is intended to symbolize the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the consequent death and resurrection of the subject of baptism with Him.^[4]

Church Fathers

Origen on infant baptism:

For this also it was, that the Church had from the apostles a tradition (or order) to give baptism even to infants.

G.R. Beasley-Murray:

How much weight one gives to . . . implicit references which paedo-baptists believe they find in [Church] Fathers . . . and in the New Testament itself depends chiefly upon the conformity of infant baptism, first, with the historical background of the apostolic church in Judaism, and, secondly, with biblical theology as the New Testament writers understand it.^[5]

Warnings against apostasy might make sense in context of infant baptism

Regenerate believers can’t lose their salvation

Jn 10:27–29; Ro 8:30

Judgment on covenant members only makes sense if some covenant members are not yet regenerate

Heb 10:28–30

Argument from necessary inferences

Gregg Strawbridge:

There is explicit warrant for the inclusion of children in the new covenant (Dt 30:6; Jer 31:36–37), in the church (Eph 1:1 with Eph 6:1–4; Col 1:2 with Col 3:20; 1Co 7:14), and in the kingdom (Mt 19:14; Mk 10:14; Lk 18:16). Moreover, the covenantal infant baptism view can be argued from truly necessary inferences—drawing upon the continuity of the covenant promise (to be God to your children after you) and the covenant people, as well as the examples of baptism (the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas). This is a synopsis of the biblical evidence that is convincing to me.^[6]

The following example is given by Strawbridge in a footnote:

• First premise: The children of believers are covenant members.
• Second premise: Covenant members are to receive the sign of entrance into the covenant.
• Inference: Therefore (this follows necessarily from the premises), the children of believers are to receive the sign of entrance into the covenant.

Relevant greek words

Occurrences of βάπτισμα (n.)

Mt 3:7; 21:25; Mk 1:4; 10:38, 39; 11:30; Lk 3:3; 7:29; 12:50; 20:4; Ac 1:22; 10:37; 13:24; 18:25; 19:3, 4; Ro 6:4; Eph 4:5; Col 2:12; 1Pe 3:21

Occurrences of βαπτισμός (n.)

Mk 7:4; Heb 6:2; 9:10

Occurrences of βαπτιστής (n.)

Mt 3:1; 11:11, 12; 14:2, 8; 16:14; 17:13; Mk 6:24, 25; 8:28; Lk 7:20, 33; 9:19

Occurrences of βαπτίζω (v.)

Mt 3:6, 11, 13, 14, 16; 28:19; Mk 1:4, 5, 8, 9; 6:14, 24; 7:4; 10:38, 39; 16:16; Lk 3:7, 12, 16, 21; 7:29, 30; 11:38; 12:50; Jn 1:25, 26, 28, 31, 33; 3:22, 23, 26; 4:1, 2; 10:40; Ac 1:5; 2:38, 41; 8:12, 13, 16, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47, 48; 11:16; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:3, 4, 5; 22:16; Ro 6:3; 1Co 1:13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal 3:27

Occurrences of βάπτω (v.)

Lk 16:24; Jn 13:26; Rev 19:13

Occurrences of λούω (v.)

Jn 13:10; Ac 9:37; Heb 10:22; 2Pe 2:22

Occurrences of νίπτω (v.)

Mt 6:17; 15:2; Mk 7:3; Jn 9:7, 11, 15; 13:5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14; 1Ti 5:10

Occurrences of πλύνω (v.)

Rev 7:14; 22:14

Occurrences of διαθήκη (n.)

Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 1:72; 22:20; Ac 3:25; 7:8; Ro 9:4; 11:27; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6, 14; Gal 3:15, 17; 4:24; Eph 2:12; Heb 7:22; 8:6, 8, 9, 10; 9:4, 15, 16, 17, 20; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20; Rev 11:19

Occurrences of ὁμολογέω (v.)

Mt 7:23; 10:32; 14:7; Lk 12:8; Jn 1:20; 9:22; 12:42; Ac 7:17; 23:8; 24:14; Ro 10:9, 10; 1Ti 6:12; Tit 1:16; Heb 11:13; 13:15; 1Jo 1:9; 2:23; 4:2, 3, 15; 2Jo 1:7; Rev 3:5

Occurrences of ἐπ-αγγέλλω

Mk 14:11; Ac 7:5; Ro 4:21; Gal 3:19; 1Ti 2:10; 6:21; Tit 1:2; Heb 6:13; 10:23; 11:11; 12:26; Jas 1:12; 2:5; 2Pe 2:19; 1Jn 2:25

ἐπαγγελία (n.)

Lk 24:49; Ac 1:4; 2:33, 39; 7:17; 13:23, 32; 23:21; 26:6; Ro 4:13, 14, 16, 20; 9:4, 8, 9; 15:8; 2Co 1:20; 7:1; Gal 3:14, 16, 17, 18, 18, 21, 22, 29; 4:23, 28; Eph 1:13; 2:12; 3:6; 6:2; 1Ti 4:8; 2Ti 1:1; Heb 4:1; 6:12, 15, 17; 7:6; 8:6; 9:15; 10:36; 11:9, 9, 13, 17, 33, 39; 2Pe 3:4, 9; 1Jn 1:5; 2:25

A couple of creative (but I think ultimately flawed) arguments

Use of “hinder” (κωλύω, διακωλύω)

Mt 3:14; Mt 19:14 (cf. Mk 10:14; Lk 18:16); Ac 8:36; 10:47; 11:17

Structural similarity

Mt 18:3 (cf. Mk 10:15; Lk 18:17); Jn 3:5

Of this latter argument, Paul K. Jewett remarks:

It seems almost a pity not to be convinced by so ingenious an effort.^[7]

Jewish proselyte baptism

Need to understand better the whole Jewish proselyte baptism angle. Re-read Beckwith's comments in “The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology” and Jewett's remarks in “Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace”.

Spirit-filled in the womb

This is relevant, I just don't quite know how yet: Lk 1:15, 41, 44

Children included in prophecy and exposition of new covenant

Many passages teach that the new covenant has stipulations for judgment (Mt 16:19; 1Co 11:29–30, 34; Heb 10:30–31; 1Pe 4:17), so membership in it cannot be exclusively for the elect. Many other passages teach that the kingdom (in its new covenant manifestation) includes both regenerate and unregenerate people (Mt 8:12; 13:24–31, 41, 47–50; 21:43; 25:1–13; Lk 13:28; Rev 11:15). And virtually every prophecy and exposition of the new covenant expressly includes the children of believers in it (Dt 30:6; Jer 30:10, 18–22; 31:1, 17, 33–37; 32:15–18, 37–40; 33:22–26; Zec 10:6–9; Joel 2:1–29; Isa 44:3; 59:20–21; Mal 4:5–6; Lk 1:17; 2:49–50; Ac 2:39; 3:25; 13:32–33; Ro 4:13–17). ^[8]

Where does this go?

I must've picked these references up in something I read, but I've completely forgotten the context or how exactly they are relevant. All I know is they somehow function as an antipedobaptist argument.

Outward circumcision is really no circumcision at all

Ro 2:25ff; Gal 5:12; Php 3:2–4; Col 3:11

Look back through history to see when I added this and try to piece back together what I must've been reading?

Found it:

In keeping with the forward movement of revelation, the spiritual and inward significance of circumcision was increasingly stressed (even in the Old Testament); and this progression is in harmony with our thesis that the shadowy age of types looked to the fuller revelation of New Testament realities. In fact, when we come to the New Testament, there is nothing left to circumcision but its ethical and spiritual meaning. It no longer has any significance at all for the New Testament saint as an external rite. With the passing of the typical age of the covenant and the inauguration of the age of semi-eschatological fulfillment, only the spiritual grace of a righteous life marks one as a citizen of the kingdom of God.

In other words, from the standpoint of the New Testament, one who has outward circumcision without inward circumcision has no circumcision at all. Hence Paul can say that if a man transgresses the law, even though he be a Jew, his circumcision has become uncircumcision. Circumcision which is merely outward in the flesh is just not circumcision (Ro 2:25⁠ff.). For one who has become a new creation in Christ, such merely outward circumcision is uncircumcision (Col 3:11). In fact, merely outward circumcision not only has no more value than uncircumcision; it is really, Paul suggests in a moment of fierce rhetorical zeal against the Judaizers (Gal 5:12), a mutilation, an act of self-destruction. Those who are truly circumcised are all those who worship God in the Spirit, boasting in Christ Jesus and having no confidence in the flesh (Php 3:2-4).

The Paedobaptist position that believers’ children have a right to baptism as members of the church by birth is on a collision course with this movement of Paul's thought. Since there are no longer covenant blessings in an external sense, there is no justification for giving the covenant sign to those who are our children in an external sense, that is, our children according to the flesh. Baptism corresponds to circumcision rather in its ethical and spiritual meaning. In keeping with this truth, the New Testament unfailingly expounds the meaning of baptism in terms of spiritual and inward blessings exclusively. In other words, while circumcision belonged both to Isaac, in whom the seed was called (Ro 9:7), and to Ishmael, in whom the seed was not called (Gal 4:30), baptism belongs to “every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Ac 2:38-39), and to those only. One who has not known the call of God has no claim to the rite which seals the promise given in that call.^[9]

On the necessity of baptism

On the necessity of baptism, Grudem argues that:

The apostle Paul would have opposed the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation just as strongly as he opposed the similar idea that circumcision was necessary for salvation (see Gal. 5:1–12).^[10]

Where/how to work this Galatians passage into this topic? — Joey 18:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Spirit and water and blood

How is 1Jn 5:6–8 relevant to the discussion of baptism? — Joey 23:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the best articles I have found on infant baptism

“Baptism in the Bible and Infant Baptism” by Gregg Strawbridge

A great article on John 3:5

“The Meaning of ‘Born of Water and the Spirit’ in John 3:5” by Robert V. McCabe, Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.

Mode of

Saving this here since I'm about to refactor a bit.

Places where βαπτίζω (baptizō) does not mean to immerse

Nu 8:7; 19:13, 18–19, 20; Ps 51:7; Eze 36:25; Mt 3:11; Mk 7:2–4; Lk 11:37–38; 12:50; Ro 6:3; 1Co 10:1–2; 12:13; Heb 9:10 (cf. Heb 9:13–14, 19, 21)

Here’s an interesting website explaining meaning of baptō and baptizō: The Meaning and Mode of Baptism by Jay Adams

Curse aspect of circumcision and baptism

Ken Golden perfectly captures the maledictory oath aspect of both circumcision and baptism, very skillfully connecting a bunch of dots in chapter 12 of his book Presbytopia: http://papers.jday.co/view/initiation

Great paper arguing that the new covenant community is mixed

Jeremiah 31:34, New Covenant Membership, and Baptism by Christian Locatell (recommended to me by Nate Taylor)

“From least to greatest” in Jer 31:34 doesn’t prove church isn’t mixed

Jer 5:4–5; 6:13; 8:10; 9:3–6; 16:6

The phrase, “all of them ... from the least of them to the greatest of them” has five parallels in the text preceding Jeremiah 31:34, each describing the apostate Mosaic Covenant community. In Jer 5:4–5, Jeremiah speaks of the knowledge of the Lord among the ‘poor’ and the ‘great.’ He expects the poor to not have a knowledge of the Lord (v. 4) but is shocked to find that even the great do not know the Lord (v. 5). Jeremiah’s description of the utter apostasy of the covenant community continues to Jer 6:13 when God himself declares, “from the least of them to the greatest of them, everyone makes unjust profit; and from prophet to priest, everyone practices deceit.” The next usage appears in Jer 8:10 where again, God declares, “from least to greatest, everyone makes unjust profit; from prophet to priest, everyone practices deceit.” In Jer 9:3–6, the Lord declares in inverse parallelism, “they do not know me” (A) and “every brother utterly betrays and every friend goes about as a slanderer” (B). “Everyone deceives his friend” (B') and “they refuse to know me” (A'). Finally, in Jer 16:6, God says that the judgment for his covenant people’s apostasy is that “great and small will die.”

These passages clearly do not mean that no member of the Mosaic Covenant without exception knew the Lord or that every single Covenant Member (including the infant) had turned aside to unjust profit and deception. In other words, the collocation גדול + קטן does not in those texts designate a group for which its predicate was the necessary condition of membership. If credobaptist proponents were to interpret this phrase consistently throughout the flow of Jeremiah’s message and these previous uses were pressed as presenting the sine qua non of membership in the Mosaic Covenant community, that would mean anyone who knew the Lord, did not pursue unjust profit, or did not deceive and slander was not actually a covenant member. This would exclude Jeremiah himself and the entire Israelite remnant from being true members of the Mosaic Covenant. Clearly this cannot be what the phrase means. This calls into question the legitimacy of interpreting Jeremiah’s use of this same phrase in 31:34 as presenting the sine qua non of New Covenant membership.

Additionally, there does not seem to be any indication that the meaning of this quantifying phrase suddenly shifts in the progression of Jeremiah’s message. In fact, the phrase occurs later in Jeremiah at Jer 42:1, 8 and Jer 44:12 with the same force. That is, even these subsequent uses are in contexts where it seems clear that it does not mean all without exception. “All the people from the least to the greatest” in Jer 42:1 are said to plead with the Lord in Jer 42:2. Since all the people in this verse included children (see Jer 41:16), it is doubtful that Jeremiah intended to say that every single member of that assembly without exception, including the infant, was engaged in a verbal plea. This same group is also in view when the phrase is used in Jer 42:8. And Jer 44:14 explicitly gives an exception to the phrase used in Jer 44:12. The text says, “... all ... From the least to the greatest” would die by sword and famine (Jer 44:12), “...except those who escape” (Jer 44:14; compare verse 28).

There are also several other passages in the OT that employ this collocation in the same way. Of particular interest is Jonah 3:5, which says, “And the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.” On the credobaptist reading, it seems this would have to mean that everyone, without exception, believed God and put on sackcloth, and anyone that did not (e.g. infants) was not really a Ninevite.

. . .

Thus, on a more contextual reading, it becomes clear that the Old/New Covenant contrast in Jeremiah 31:34 is between present pervasive lack of knowledge of the Lord and the future pervasive presence of the knowledge of the Lord. In the coming days the present situation in Israel would be flipped on its head. While at that time Jeremiah was amazed by the pervasive lack of the knowledge of the Lord even among the great, the time was coming when he could expect to find a pervasive presence of it even among the least. While at that time there was a pervasive lack of knowledge of the Lord among God’s people that affected everyone without distinction, the days were coming when such knowledge would be poured out on all without distinction.

But, crucially, each instance of this quantifying phrase in the flow of Jeremiah’s message designates a mixed community. In other words, the thing predicated of the group designated by the quantifying phrase “all ... from the least of them to the greatest of them” (e.g. not knowing the Lord, deceiving, slandering, or knowing the Lord) was not true of every single member of the group. So, while there are certainly profound new features in the New Covenant, Jeremiah’s use of the same quantifying phrase in reference to both Old and New strongly suggests that he does not intend to posit faith as a sine qua non of membership to be one of those new features. Simply put, that’s not Jeremiah’s point.

When Jeremiah 31:34 is approached in this way, the paedobaptist does not have to hurry quickly to other passages that support a mixed New Covenant community (though that may be legitimate) or point out that the New Covenant community will be purely regenerate at the consummation (though that is true). There is no need to posit seminal faith, fides aliena, presumptive regeneration, or to reinterpret “knowledge of the Lord” in some ‘non-saving’ way in order to squeeze covenant children into the New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:34. Rather, the paedobaptist can simply interpret Jeremiah 31:34 consistently with the way Jeremiah invariably uses the quantifier throughout his prophesy – in reference to a community about which something is pervasively, though not exhaustively, true. If, on the on the other hand, credobaptists want to push this quantifier as demanding a necessary condition of New Covenant membership, they must show where in the context of Jeremiah’s message the phrase picked up that notion which is absent from every other use.

“Credobaptist” church fathers

The earliest church fathers who advocated delaying baptism did so on the grounds that it works ex opere operato and that if you sin after baptism there can be no more forgiveness, therefore, the best strategy was to delay the cleansing effect of baptism until the very last second. In short, they advocated death bed baptisms.

Today’s credobaptists insist that the new covenant community is made up of only regenerate people, and they advocate delaying baptism until we’re certain a person is regenerate. But, short of having omniscience or at least infallible knowledge of things, how can we know if a person is truly regenerate? Should we not delay baptism for as long as possible until we are certain a person’s faith really is legitimate? Maybe even until the person has endured to the end, thus finally proving they were regenerate all along?

I know today’s credobaptists are a far cry from the earliest fathers who advocated delaying baptism (so far that they are on very shaky ground claiming those fathers in support of their position), but I think there’s actually a kernel of similarity there, and it’s a similarity I wouldn’t want to identify with personally.

References

1. Hyde, Daniel R. (2006). Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children (p. 30). Reformed Fellowship, Inc. #
2. Berkhof, Louis (1959). Systematic Theology (Kindle Locations 18,156-18,158). Eerdmans Publishing Co. Kindle Edition. #
3. Berkhof, Louis (1959). Systematic Theology (Kindle Locations 18,158-18,171). Eerdmans Publishing Co. Kindle Edition. #
4. Berkhof, Louis (1959). Systematic Theology (Kindle Locations 18212-18214). Eerdmans Publishing Co. Kindle Edition. [Emphasis mine.] #
5. Beasley-Murray, G. R. (1975). Infant baptism. In C. Brown (Ed.), The new international dictionary of new testament theology (Vol. I, p. 154). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. #
6. Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, The (Kindle Locations 92-95). Kindle Edition. #
7. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Kindle Location 647). Kindle Edition. #
8. Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, The (Kindle Locations 3026–3030). Kindle Edition. #
9. Jewett, Paul K., Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Kindle Locations 2536-2551). Kindle Edition. #
10. Grudem, Wayne (2009). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (p. 981). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. #